| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 15:43:33
Late in the film Harry enthuses that his self-appointed Army has �something to fight for,� implying his nemesis The Dark Lord causes murderous mayhem on a malevolent whim.
Harry knows evil Voldemort is back; why won�t anyone believe him? Why indeed! The unexplained dismissal of such a threat may be requisite for the plot, but doesn�t make much sense.
It would be churlish to damn too harshly such a populist franchise for logical consistency, especially when it�s aimed at children, presumably already big fans.
What�s clear is that our Hogwort heroes, mini-witches though they may be, have been bitten by pangs of teenage rebellion.
The fact that by machinations of state interference in educational policy, the school�s new leader, the wonderfully named Dolores Umbridge curtails their fighting spirit in favour of dull theory explains why the film, despite some superb sfx, isn�t as visually astounding as its predecessors.
Veteran telly director David Yates � already in pre-production for the next Potter product � brings little of the menace of Alfonso Cuar�n�s darker Prisoner of Azkaban, and less of Mike Newell�s wit in Goblet of Fire.
Most of the latter springs from Umbridge�s quintessential portrayal by the diminutive pink-clad Imelda Staunton, successfully combining shades of Mary Whitehouse, Margaret Thatcher and the shark from Jaws. Staunton packs more threat into her tight-lipped smile than all the roars of Hellraiser as she justifies the torture of students to achieve precious order.
Her role, as appointee of The Ministry, is to control the students, banning the sloppy practices of her predecessors, including the well-beloved Dumbledore [another solid if unremarkable performance by Michael Gambon].
That she�s a tool of the state bodes ill. No wonder Harry leads the students to question the point of attending such a �vocational training� academy if they can�t put their theory into practice.
Umbridge�s answer is triumphant: the purpose of education is to pass exams. Such undertones make Order of the Phoenix the most quasi-political of the franchise so far.
The script plants seeds, too, of Harry�s adolescent struggle between feelings of isolation and nascent leadership, galvanising his Army to do ultimate battle with Voldemort. But, perhaps inevitably in its attempt to reduce the longest of the books into a manageable film slot, it loses focus.
With a few exceptions the story focuses on process over people, tending to lower the urgency of the denouement. Such brave rebels deserve a better cause.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 11:47:16
Thanks - I hadn't seen/remembered the total figures. I was basing it on all evidence pointing to there being about five pupils of each sex in each house in each year, i.e. 5 x 2 x 4 x 7 = 280 altogether. Hhmmm, Maths obviously isn't her strong point! (And this isn't an instance where "Ooh, it's all magical" can cover it up.) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 11:52:21
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And talking of new characters - it always astonishes me that there always seem to be pupils that Harry et al do not recognise, and even ones in their year (of about forty pupils) whose names they still do not know!
Rowlings initially said that there were about 1000 kids at Hogwarts at any given time. Even if the figure is more like 600, as she later revised it, that's still a whole lot of kids. I went to a High School of about 1000 kids - four years, 250 kids per year, divided into 4 'halls' - meaning there were about 62-63 kids in my year in my hall. While I knew some of the kids from the other halls (mostly from previous schools, and partially from combined classes and activities), there were lots and lots of kids I never knew by name until I got my yearbook, and even more that I never got to know since they were in classes below or above me!
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/14/2007 : 16:40:35
A couple of other things...
The fifth book repeatedly refers to Ron having shot up*, and the sixth to both Ron and Harry doing so - this is presumably to mirror the actors in the films, but it's a couple of books too late!
Also wanted to add that I think Luna is a great character and a much needed addition to float around the boundaries of the central group. She is very well done in the film, and her Irish accent and white blonde hair are an improvement to the unspecified background and dirty blonde hair of the books. In contrast, a certain character is introduced in the sixth book but barely developed at all - presumably more is shown in the last book, but it's still a bit strange. And talking of new characters - it always astonishes me that there always seem to be pupils that Harry et al do not recognise, and even ones in their year (of about forty pupils) whose names they still do not know!
*Grown quickly, not injected drugs! Having said that, they do seem to be allowed to drink alcohol from the age of eleven and in the sixth book Harry manufactures 'E'! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/14/2007 : 16:30:59
Oh, and on Umbridge, yep, Staunton does a good job, but the character's facial expressions and manner are very clearly described in the book (more so than any other, I thought as I read it), so she did not have to come up with anything herself. Someone fatter and with a slacker face would also have been much better, although she does the best she can with the body and face she has.
I cannot now remember Percy in the film - is he in it at all? If he has been cut out altogether, that's a mistake that will have to be compensated for later. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/14/2007 : 16:27:20
To answer some other points from MguX etc.:
It may be the case that films or film franchises typically stand alone, but this does not mean that it is necessary in every case. The vast majority of the target audience (children) and a large proportion of the adult audience will have read the books. It is simply the case that this is an exception to the norm and it's fine for the films to rely on the books in this way.
I agree with M.B.I. that the Cho kiss is significant. It refers to a bigger story in the book, but it would also be odd to remove these sort of ordinary adolescent rites of passage and just leave the fight against evil behind. Even before I'd read the sixth book, it would be clear that there would be more of this coming (e.g. who will Harry ultimately pair up with? - my opinion on the matter is at odds with the sixth book, having not yet read the seventh...), and so it needs to be introduced.
My impression is that Fudge is supposed to be wilfully naive about Voldemort's return rather than actively complicit.
Umbridge's umbrage is that she does not get the respect that she feels she deserves from her position. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/14/2007 : 16:11:05
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
SIDE NOTE: About :10 in, just after the Dementor attack, the sound went off for about :05, but the picture kept rolling [bad form by the exhibitor; I sent them a sniffy letter] for Harry's suspension and Dursley slapstick. Since these were heavy dialogue scenes and the Dursley stuff was visual, no Potter fan lost his place -- because they'd already read the book! Almost uniquely in movies, the fans are ahead of the story: what they want to see is the execution.
Yep, I almost watched it dubbed into Polish for this reason, as I had just read the book. I have now just read the sixth and disagree with C.L.'s son that it is better - I slightly preferred the fifth one.
It is indeed strange, as B.B. says, that this film is shorter than others despite the book being so massive. I found that the Grawp/centaurs story was overly abridged/changed - it really would have been better to squeeze Firenze in. There were also pointless changes to Umbridge's rule (far more educational decrees/students being interrogated than in the book) and I was disappointed that the subversion by the students/teachers after Dumbledore's departure seemed played down. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 00:55:02
Watched this yesterday.
The battle sequence was a bit Star Warish.
Obi/Vader.....Dumbledore/Voldemort.
Could Voldemort be Harry's real dad?  
Don't answer that, if you have read all the books.
No future spoilers please.
My wife would agree with MguyX about "the impression that Voldemort has infiltrated the ministry or was perhaps controlling Fudge".
She asked me at the end if Fudge and Umbridge were on the Dark Side.
I agree with MBI on "Alan Rickman is great at all times and I will not hear a word otherwise!"
I too, have not read any of the books, we do have them for future reading.
Did I like the movie? My thumb is sideways at the moment.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 16:48:03
For those who may be interested 
my HP review is now online at
The Morning Star
Jeff Sawtell's review of Taxidermia is also up ... sounds appalling and fascinating ... great photo, though!
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 16:18:25
quote:
On the one hand, also, it was interesting to learn that Harry's dad was a bully/jerk when he was a kid and that Snape was a geek, but again, and on the other hand, it really didn't seem to move the story along very much. Actually, it just raised more unanswered questions.
Not all scenes have to move along the story, I would argue. It adds texture. Unanswered questions are not necessarily a bad thing either.
quote:
I'm glad you clarified Fudge's paranoia for me, because it didn't come across in the film, and here's why.
I'm not just drawing conclusions about Fudge's motivations; they said it outright right in the movie. Couple times, in fact.
quote:
Rickman's Snape appears to walk around in a trance this entire film. Did he say more than 15 words?
Alan Rickman is great at all times and I will not hear a word otherwise!
quote:
The film could have left it out altogether and suffered nothing in the way of story development (mistletoe out of nowhere???).
The fact that Harry kisses a girl is on its own major character development, I think. Plus, it sets up Cho's perceived betrayal later in the film, which gives it more punch. Also, mistletoe appears out of nowhere because that magic room "provides everything you need"; that's the joke. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 10:02:51
As I said before, we just have different taste in films, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And, yes, I do recall the slight set up for Cho in the last film. But given that she has virtually no part in the story development in this film, the kiss came off as completely haphazard. The film could have left it out altogether and suffered nothing in the way of story development (mistletoe out of nowhere???). It came off as gratuitous, especially in light of all the hype given to "Harry's first kiss." In fact, I'd have preferred if it were a brief smacker instead -- more befitting its superflous occurrence.
I'm glad you clarified Fudge's paranoia for me, because it didn't come across in the film, and here's why. One has to be fairly idiotic not only to ignore an impending menace, but also to begin dismantling one's lines of defense against it. This left the impression that Voldemort has infiltrated the ministry or was perhaps controlling Fudge. Since that turned out not to be the case, and Fudge did not appear to be a complete dunce, it left Fudge's actions sorely under-explained.
Also -- a side note -- the pun implied in Ms. Umbridge's name proved another distraction to me. Umbrage is the feeling of being insulted by the slight of another. Umbridge was simply a one-woman Inquisition, which clashed for me with the implied pun in her name.
And here's another thing: Rickman's Snape appears to walk around in a trance this entire film. Did he say more than 15 words? On the one hand, also, it was interesting to learn that Harry's dad was a bully/jerk when he was a kid and that Snape was a geek, but again, and on the other hand, it really didn't seem to move the story along very much. Actually, it just raised more unanswered questions.
Sean raised a good point in that there was a considerable amount to pare down to fit into one movie. Unfortunately, I don't think the screenwiter was as successful as I would have liked.
Maybe I just need to watch it again. But that's not going to happen anytime soon, as I'd rather take bamboo splinters and pierce the skin where my fingernails break free than sit through that bumpy ride on my own dime.
I'm not saying that my opinion is gospel: everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I'm glad you enjoyed it.  |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 07:45:45
quote:
Further, the ministry's efforts to disarm the children and dumb-down the magic populace made no sense when there was no connection made between that effort and Voldemort. IT JUST MAKES NO SENSE
You're free to your opinion, but I have to believe you weren't paying attention. Both the kiss and the ministry's denial were adequately set up. The Cho thing was set up not only in the last film but in several instances before it. Fudge denies Voldemort's existence out of powerful sense of denial of a problem of that magnitude, coupled with paranoia about his job security.
If you want to argue that subplots were set up that weren't followed upon, you certainly can, but those aren't it.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 05:45:56
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
...There was quite apparently a LOT more subplot going on in the book...
A basic rule of thumb I use is 100 pages of book = 1 hour of film.* So your basic 300-page novel will need some editing for a 2-hour movie, but perhaps not too drastic. But 870 pages for HP/OOTP down to 2 hours would have required massive editing.
*That rule worked nicely for LOTR; 1100 pages = 11.5 hours of movie which would have been about 12.5 hours with the whole book included.
|
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 03:25:16
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
This is by far the best film of the franchise. It's also by far the darkest, so that should tell you a bit about me.
OK, MBI, I now see that we simply have different tastes in movies.
I have never read any of the Potter books, though I have seen the movies thus far. Because I have not read the books, nothing I say here is intended toward Ms. Rowling's works. But I wonder if the charity given to this film comes more from loyalty to the books than evaluation of what's taking place on screen. I thought this film was tedious, disjointed, choppy, and boring. I have great confidence that the book was far better, but the editing in this film was stupid.
Why did Harry kiss that girl anyway? There was no real lead up, it came out of nowhere, and it added absolutely nothing to the story. There was quite apparently a LOT more subplot going on in the book, because the film tries to touch on quite a few but suffers as it fails to develop any of them successfully.
Further, the ministry's efforts to disarm the children and dumb-down the magic populace made no sense when there was no connection made between that effort and Voldemort. IT JUST MAKES NO SENSE (though the series readers probably have the benefit of much better information and rationale).
I rate this one very low.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 17:52:56
Gee! I guess it's not just me!
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 17:38:10
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
It ain't always about Bush. Well, not directly anyway
Well, to show that I am not totally ignorant of this "United Kingship" or whatever you call it, the connection I made from this movie was Voldemort as Hitler, Dumbledore as Churchill, and Fudge as history's favorite whipping boy Neville Chamberlain.
|
|
|
